The CIT Group/Equipment Financing, Inc. v. George Roberts and Good Hope Wrecker & Service, Inc.

Summary

The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals held that CIT was not liable for unpaid storage fees for equipment securing its interest because no express or implied contract existed between CIT and the storage provider. The court rejected imputing the debtor's knowledge of the equipment's location to CIT and concluded that CIT did not knowingly accept the storage services. The judgment for George Roberts and Good Hope Wrecker & Service, Inc. was reversed and remanded.

Holdings

1. No. Because CIT did not knowingly accept the storage services, no contract could be implied in law, and CIT was not liable for the storage fees.
2. No. Armstrong's knowledge could not be imputed to CIT on the stipulated facts because no special legal relationship or identity of interests supported imputation.

Questions Presented

1. Whether CIT could be held liable for storage fees under an express or implied contract when CIT did not know where the equipment was located until May 2001.
2. Whether Armstrong's knowledge of the equipment's location could be imputed to CIT so as to establish the knowledge required for an implied-in-law contract or unjust-enrichment recovery.
3. Whether the trial court properly awarded storage fees to Good Hope and Roberts.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded